Mick McCarthy

[brine2]

Mick McCarthy to Denis Irwin: "prove yourself"

[pineapple stu]

You could argue that McCarthy may have done the same but we'll never know, the fact is Charlton did do it.

But you can't call Charlton better than McCarthy because he did something McCarthy never had a chace to do. You can call Charlton good for it, but not better. Your argument is based on the assumption that if McCarthy had had the chance, he would have failed, which reduces the argument to the ifs and buts you were complaining about earlier. You can't possibly compare the two based on an achievement McCarthy never had a chance to emulate, therefore the point has to be void in the context you're using it.

For that era the list of great players was better yes, but if you look at our best achievement, the 1990 world cup, it was done without Brady.

The list of players is still far longer. Brady (and Lawrenson) contributed in some way to qualifying for Euro 88, whereas if we'd have finished second, by your argument, the achievement would have been nullified. Therefore they count on the list.

It's all about qualifying. Charlton played into that system because second was enough, who's to say if we needed to finish first he wouldn't have changed a few things, gone for wins when he went for draws?

So IF Charlton had been subject to the same qualiication criteria as McCarthy, he COULD have won the groups? Ifs and buts again. Second place is second place is as good as each other. McCarthy's three second places were by goal difference (02), by one point by 10 seconds (00) and by six points (?) (98); Charlton's were by two points (1990), one point (1992), one point (1994 - all those with two points for a win, though presumably you'll make a deal of that too!) and five points (1996). Around the same, with a stronger squad for Charlton. Therefore, McCarthy's achievements are at least comparable to Charlton's.

Also, the fact that Cunningham, Morrison, Carsley and Breen all moved up to the Premiership that summer should be taken into account, you can't dismiss them as being First Divison players at the time, more then likely a lot of them already had their deals to move sewn up.

There's a massive jump from playing against First Division opposition to playing in the World Cup, which is why having so many First Division players was a disadvantage.

I would call the squads about equal, given the age of a lot of Charlton's players as well.

So in achieving the same position (second round), McCarthy's achievement was the same as Charlton's. But we won one and drew three in 2002, compared to winning one, drawing one and losing two in 1994. Cameroon and Saudi Arabia weren't world-beaters, but neither were Mexico or Norway. We laid down against Holland, we pummelled Spain, again all under the backdrop of our best player pulling a hissy fit. You earlier disregard Sunderland's run to the Cup semis because of the way it was achieved, yet here choose to regard two Second Round exits as exactly the same.

1) I explained why that was important.

And I have, I believe, validly dismissed it as conjecture which shouldn't be used in making comparisons.

2) No offence, but it's laughable to claim the Macedonia debacle is more impressive then any of the campaigns Charlton actually got us qualified with.

You make rather light of Macedonia as a team - ask England how good they are and they won't call them no-hopers. International football is much stronger than in the 80s and even the 90s due to countries having more players in the top flights of top leagues. Even Liechtenstein have a Serie A player, who wouldn't have gone there years ago because of the three foreigners rule. You're considering the campaign from the last ten seconds, I'm considering the rest of it - beating and knocking out the World Cup semi-finallists and beating (and nearly knocking out) World Cup quarter-finallists is an achievement which shouldn't be dismissed. Your argument that second-placed here is worse than second-placed for Charlton is again based on conjecture.

3) Under McCarthy we lacked the killer instinct we had under Charlton

This would be the killer instinct which saw us win two of twelve games in international finals? The killer instinct which saw us finish off the USSR and Egypt challenge when we were all over them? The killer instinct which saw Yugoslavia, Iceland, Lithuania equalise against us, yet we came back for the win? Under Charlton, we only ever won once after falling behind (to Albania). Doesn't show a lot of killer instinct in those situations. The latter two mightn't be world beaters, but they are tricky teams in their own right (ask France about Iceland!) who have come very close to reaching play-off in recent years. And of course that killer instinct was in evidence in Vaduz that time as well!

I'm not trying to show that McCarthy was better than Charlton - though I believe he was - I only have to show that he wasn't anywhere near as far off him as you make out. I think everything above points to that.

[lopez]

Charlton='God' ;

Mc Carthy=' mini-God'

B.Kerr= ?....possible deity?

RMK(aka'the Brat')......only worthy of contempt.....

God = God

Jesus = Son of God

RMK = Judas Escariot

[Slash/ED]

But you can't call Charlton better than McCarthy because he did something McCarthy never had a chace to do. You can call Charlton good for it, but not better. Your argument is based on the assumption that if McCarthy had had the chance, he would have failed, which reduces the argument to the ifs and buts you were complaining about earlier. You can't possibly compare the two based on an achievement McCarthy never had a chance to emulate, therefore the point has to be void in the context you're using it.

I disagree. It showed Charlton had a harder job then McCarthy because of what he had to do at the start, so his achievements are even more impressive because of it. He achieved more because of this, in my opinion, and that's relevant when comparing the two.

The list of players is still far longer. Brady (and Lawrenson) contributed in some way to qualifying for Euro 88, whereas if we'd have finished second, by your argument, the achievement would have been nullified. Therefore they count on the list.

That's valid for '88 and maybe '90, but he didn't have this list in '94, and still managed to do more in '94 by beating Italy, the world cup finalists who could so easily have been winners, and getting to the quater finals. For '88 and '90 he may have had a stronger squad of players on paper, but had to work alot harder in getting them to achieve what he did by instilling the winning mentality, team spirit and never say die attitude that before we simply never had. He also had to sort out a dressing room that was, allegedly, full of egos. So you can't just dismiss what he did because he had better players.

So IF Charlton had been subject to the same qualiication criteria as McCarthy, he COULD have won the groups? Ifs and buts again. Second place is second place is as good as each other. McCarthy's three second places were by goal difference (02), by one point by 10 seconds (00) and by six points (?) (98); Charlton's were by two points (1990), one point (1992), one point (1994 - all those with two points for a win, though presumably you'll make a deal of that too!) and five points (1996). Around the same, with a stronger squad for Charlton. Therefore, McCarthy's achievements are at least comparable to Charlton's.

Charlton knew second place would have got us through, and planned accordingly. It's like comparing two teams from different years in a league based on the points they got.

There's a massive jump from playing against First Division opposition to playing in the World Cup, which is why having so many First Division players was a disadvantage.

Fair enough, but he still had a starting 11 of all but one premiership player, and a bench that was either premiership players or players who've since shown they can play at that level for the most part. He also could have swapped Breen for O'Brien and fielded an all premiership 11 anyway.

So in achieving the same position (second round), McCarthy's achievement was the same as Charlton's. But we won one and drew three in 2002, compared to winning one, drawing one and losing two in 1994. Cameroon and Saudi Arabia weren't world-beaters, but neither were Mexico or Norway. We laid down against Holland, we pummelled Spain, again all under the backdrop of our best player pulling a hissy fit. You earlier disregard Sunderland's run to the Cup semis because of the way it was achieved, yet here choose to regard two Second Round exits as exactly the same.

I didn't disregard it, I just said you have to look at the teams he's faced in getting there. As for the two world cups...

In 2002 we drew with a poor side, a good side, beat the worst side in world cup history, and went out to a side famous for under achieveing at world cups despite a numbers advantage, who would then go out to South Korea.

In 1994, we beat a far better side then the 2002 Germans, lost to a good Mexico side, drew with a Norwegian side who were about level with Cameroon, and lost to a class Dutch side

I would say we did more in '94 when you look at it.

And I have, I believe, validly dismissed it as conjecture which shouldn't be used in making comparisons.

I disagree. I think it made Charltons job harder and couteracts the argument that he had better individuals. He may have had better individuals, but McCarthy had far less problems in the dressing room and inherited a side that already had the team spirit.

You make rather light of Macedonia as a team - ask England how good they are and they won't call them no-hopers. International football is much stronger than in the 80s and even the 90s due to countries having more players in the top flights of top leagues. Even Liechtenstein have a Serie A player, who wouldn't have gone there years ago because of the three foreigners rule. You're considering the campaign from the last ten seconds, I'm considering the rest of it - beating and knocking out the World Cup semi-finallists and beating (and nearly knocking out) World Cup quarter-finallists is an achievement which shouldn't be dismissed. Your argument that second-placed here is worse than second-placed for Charlton is again based on conjecture.

Are you seriously suggesting the Macedonia match was anything other then a farce!?

We faced two sides who had come off good campaigns but weren't what they once were, neither got anywhere near a semi final at a major tournament again. Coratia espically had peaked and were on the way down. Having put ourselfs in the position we got in, and then thrown it away the way we did, I don't see how anyone in their right mind could say the 2000 qualification was anything but a complete failure.

This would be the killer instinct which saw us win two of twelve games in international finals? The killer instinct which saw us finish off the USSR and Egypt challenge when we were all over them? The killer instinct which saw Yugoslavia, Iceland, Lithuania equalise against us, yet we came back for the win? Under Charlton, we only ever won once after falling behind (to Albania). Doesn't show a lot of killer instinct in those situations. The latter two mightn't be world beaters, but they are tricky teams in their own right (ask France about Iceland!) who have come very close to reaching play-off in recent years. And of course that killer instinct was in evidence in Vaduz that time as well!

They have come 'very close' to reaching play offs in recent years, in fairness that makes them minnows.

Under McCarthy we simply had a load of nearly stories. The world cup was like that, we 'nearly' beat Germany, we came so close against Spain, but ultimately, we fell short. The only time this wasn't the case was against Holland at home. In 2000 we couldn't beat a bunch of minnows (Please don't try and portray them as being anything other then minnows who we should have walked over, because that's exactly what they are), conceding in the last minute after decideing to try and consolodate a one goal lead. In 1998 we drew 0-0 with Lithuania at home, lost to bloody Macedonia (who we had beaten easily at home), played our best player at centre half against the mighty Iceland to achieve a fantastic 0-0 draw at home.

I'm not trying to show that McCarthy was better than Charlton - though I believe he was - I only have to show that he wasn't anywhere near as far off him as you make out. I think everything above points to that.

Charlton wasn't a managerial genius, but he was what we needed at the time. We just needed someone who could go in, sort out the egos and get us playing as a team. In that, Charlton did his job and did it brilliantly. Now, we don't need that, we need someone who maxamise the potential of the players we have and build on what Charlton helped install, and McCarthy simply wasn't that man, and had to go, imo.

[Bring Back Mick]

Short memories lads, think back to when Mick was appointed as manager, other possibilities@ the time - Joe Kinnear, Mike Walker etc........if any one else had been appointed we would now be at the same level as the Scots but hey proberley still better than the boys from the Norf........

If that ****** from Cork hadn't thrown his toys out of his pram and walked out on us (Yep walked out on us, squad didn't walked out on him or stab him in the back) in Saipan we may have made the semis or even the final of World Cup 2002.

But hey we have the loveable Dub in charge, jury still out on him especially after the Swiss game, have never seen an Irish team play a competitive game with no passion or direction for 90 mins. Yet still the same players are appearing in the squads where are all those young players we were told by the friendly irish media that would now be called up...............

Maybe the future is Green all to be revealed come Sept 2004

[lopez]

But hey we have the loveable Dub in charge, jury still out on him especially after the Swiss game, have never seen an Irish team play a competitive game with no passion or direction for 90 mins...

Oh how true! That dressing room would have been in bits if Mick was in charge in Basel.

[finlma]

Short memories lads, think back to when Mick was appointed as manager, other possibilities@ the time - Joe Kinnear, Mike Walker etc........if any one else had been appointed we would now be at the same level as the Scots but hey proberley still better than the boys from the Norf........

Joe Kinnear would have done a way better job than McCarthy, no question about it. He's a much more talented manager; he's just been unlucky with his dodgy heart.

[Declan_Michael]

Short memories lads, think back to when Mick was appointed as manager, other possibilities@ the time - Joe Kinnear, Mike Walker etc........if any one else had been appointed we would now be at the same level as the Scots but hey proberley still better than the boys from the Norf........

If that ****** from Cork hadn't thrown his toys out of his pram and walked out on us (Yep walked out on us, squad didn't walked out on him or stab him in the back) in Saipan we may have made the semis or even the final of World Cup 2002.

But hey we have the loveable Dub in charge, jury still out on him especially after the Swiss game, have never seen an Irish team play a competitive game with no passion or direction for 90 mins. Yet still the same players are appearing in the squads where are all those young players we were told by the friendly irish media that would now be called up...............

Maybe the future is Green all to be revealed come Sept 2004

Lets face it lads McCarthy, as I've said 1,000 times before was hounded out in the hope of getting Keane back. It failed miserable. I have also said that one of the 'intelligent' arguements against McCarthy was his accent. In comes Kerr with that loveable Dublin accent and all those credentials (oh the youth team they cry!). Nothing against Kerr personally but there is no way he is or will be better than McCarthy. Basel proved that.

[lopez]

Joe Kinnear would have done a way better job than McCarthy, no question about it. He's a much more talented manager; he's just been unlucky with his dodgy heart.

So why didn't he take the job? Oh me 'eart, me eart! Me b*llocks. That happened after. He knew that the job after Charlton was a poisoned chalice. Hence the relatively inexperienced and inept McCarthy getting it. Who else applied for the job that was better. They may as well have employed me.

Thing is though, for all his limitations (as Slash/Ed rightly claims, albeit adding that he never improved in the six years there) he did a fantastic job. Can Kerr deliver? The jury's out but at least he's not getting the sh*t chucked at him that Mac got from the start because...

...one of the 'intelligent' arguements against McCarthy was his accent. In comes Kerr with that loveable Dublin accent and all those credentials (oh the youth team they cry!). Nothing against Kerr personally but there is no way he is or will be better than McCarthy. Basel proved that.

[finlma]

Lets face it lads McCarthy, as I've said 1,000 times before was hounded out in the hope of getting Keane back. It failed miserable. I have also said that one of the 'intelligent' arguements against McCarthy was his accent. In comes Kerr with that loveable Dublin accent and all those credentials (oh the youth team they cry!). Nothing against Kerr personally but there is no way he is or will be better than McCarthy. Basel proved that.

Kerr had to employ risky tactics against the Swiss cause of the state McCarthy left us in, in regards to qualifying. He did well to have us in with a shout coming into the last game. Give Kerr time and he'll show how much better he is than McCarthy.
As for the accent thing, why do you keep going on about it? If he spoke Zwahili people wouldn't care as long as the right results came our way. Anyone who does complain about a person's accent isn't worth listening to anyway.
McCarthy was hounded out because of 2 terrible results and the fact that it was time for a change. It was nothing to do with Keane.

[Declan_Michael]

Kerr had to employ risky tactics against the Swiss cause of the state McCarthy left us in, in regards to qualifying. He did well to have us in with a shout coming into the last game. Give Kerr time and he'll show how much better he is than McCarthy.
As for the accent thing, why do you keep going on about it? If he spoke Zwahili people wouldn't care as long as the right results came our way. Anyone who does complain about a person's accent isn't worth listening to anyway.
McCarthy was hounded out because of 2 terrible results and the fact that it was time for a change. It was nothing to do with Keane.

How could it be time for a change after 2 results. We had just returned from our first tournament under McCarthy. Once Mick was gone I would say that alot of people hoped and even expected Keane return. On the accent thing, people (and the media) will stoop to any level when they have it in for an individual.

[finlma]

How could it be time for a change after 2 results. We had just returned from our first tournament under McCarthy. Once Mick was gone I would say that alot of people hoped and even expected Keane return. On the accent thing, people (and the media) will stoop to any level when they have it in for an individual.

McCarthy's Yorkshire accent is a bit hard to listen to but no reason to fire him. He'd been in charge for a long time and things were starting to get rusty. He should have stepped aside after the WC. What's happened has happened so lets look forward to some successful years under Kerr.